About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 15
CNNW 3
CSPAN 3
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
to be looking ahead to d.o.m.a. and prop 8 and the supreme court is going to be hearing arguments on those cases. some people have said the best thing for the republican party would be four the court to strike down both of those provisions so they don't exactly have to litigate or plant a flag on their opinion regarding gay marriage any more. it's settled law of the land and everybody can forget about this being a divisive issue and move along. what do you make of that? >> well look, there's no question that congress, that passed d.o.m.a., certainly has a responsibility as many there have tried. to repeal d.o.m.a. d.o.m.a. is before the supreme court next week, as is proposition 8, the marriage ban in cal cam. we'll see what the court does on those two. i'm opt michtic on both. at the end of the day, we don't decide the fundamental rights of a minority by the a vote of the people or the whims of public opinion polls. that's with a our judiciary is there for. as we're talking about the new language that you're hearing from chairman raince priebus and the report that came out from the republican p
another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage rec
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the supreme court to strike down doma. and now on the heels that, hillary clinton coming out in support of marriage equality. >> well that's right. i think most people assumed that secretary clinton was for it. but she wasn't in a political position in the administration. i don't think you'll see any viable democratic candidate in 2016 who's going to make it through the primary oppose gay marriage. you saw rush by governors like o'malley and cuomo to stay they supported it. the vice president. even after the announcement of senator portman and all these republican consultants you simply can't be a democratic candidate in 2016 and oppose same-sex marriage. >> susan, your reaction to this. again, this is on the heels of the fact that rob portman made this fantastic declaration of how he supports his kid and wants him to be able to achieve marriage equality in the country. a big tauurnaround in the republican party. this is huge for hillary clinton. >> i agree with ben 100%. no democrat in the 2016 campaign is going to be opposed to marriage equality. before this, she was not pro-marriage
the defense of marriage act into law wrote an op-ed piece saying he believes that doma is, quote, incompatible with our constitution. the white house becomed hillary clinton to the majority side of marriage equality today. >> i can tell you that the president believes any time a public official of stature steps forward to embrace a commitment that he shares to equality for lbgt americans he thinks is a good thing. >> first of all, who is doing the lighting for that video? more godfather-y than i expected, that dark brooding look. >> it reminded me of the video she -- when she announced in 2008, it was that kind of soft, sing songy voice and lighting. listen, i don't think it is a surprise she has come out for same sex marriage. interesting this is her first post secretary of state announcement and now there's a lot of buzz around her possibly running in 2016. i think we have seen dramatic shift in public opinion. it happened swiftly. i remain shocked how much changed in the last couple years. if you go back to 2008, bush ran against same sex marriage and that in many ways helped him in states
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
environment -- i would be hard to imagine if in june they come back with the ruling on the doma case and prop 8 case and they maintain doma and maintain -- it's just hard to imagine in this environment. there would be such a backlash. the public is so ahead of where these laws were in 2004 and 2008. >> bill: absolutely. 866-55-press if you want to weigh in on this very very significant movement in the direction in support of marriage equality. you mentioned and you referred to the -- we love the phrase autopsy. in that this is what the republicans are calling it the point we have made here several times. it's an unusual choice of a phrase -- if you want -- that you do not perform autopsy on bodies you expect to come back to life. >> they are dead. >> bill: exactly they are cold. but that's what they are calling it. at any rate, one of the things is outreach. we're going to spend $10 million reaching out to women and to blacks and to latinos and they are already violating it you report on think progress. >> they violated moments after -- you have this big endorse
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
takes up marriage equality. hearing arguments on california's proposition 8 on tuesday and then doma on wednesday. lbgt groups are planning over 100 events across the country to mark the historic legal debate. this is as a new abc news/"the washington post" poll shows support for marriage equality is at an all-time high riding at 58%. joining me to talk more about this is marriage equality director brian silva. it is great to have you here. as we talk more about that poll and we dig deeper we look at the evaluation of the youth vote. 18-year-olds to 29-year-olds. they back marriage equality at a wlo whopping 81%. yesterday hillary clinton came outputting that statement on vhrc website. her husband came out on march 7th for marriage equality to strike down doma. we have senator portman coming out. we have huntsman that's come out for marriage equality. has the tide turned? >> yes. there is a reason i have a big smile on my face. it's been a great time for marriage equality. we have folks across the political spectrum, the faith, the age spectrum. the super majority of americans believ
and doma. >> i'm optimistic. look how the courts have dealt with this in california in the last six years. look at the polling in california from the time we passed proposition eight to outlaw gay marriage to where we are in the public polls now. it has changed all over california and it's beginning to change all over the country. you see that in the corporations wecorporations' responses you see that in elected official's responses from former vice presidents senators and throughout the country. i think it's really flipped in the last seven or eight years in terms of the public perception of this issue. result i think the courts will follow that. >> michael: optimism j lazarus thank you so much for coming into "the war room." >> thank you. >> michael: an unique question and answer session puts the african-american experience in a whole new light. >> we could find our own way by standing up for the truth. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will
support for gay marriage. come out for d.o.m.a., which he passed. they have sort of come to the light, if you will. republicans i think need to also have a, they need to go to authenticity school or wherever it is that you learn how to do this sort of stuff if they're going to move the party forward on this. >> the fact that they've called this the growth and opportunity project, i think says it all this is about, i know that this is is a strategy document for trying to win more votes. but why not call it something like, what we can do for middle class america. i mean, why not make this about the policies of the republican party that are going to help people, rather than how we can get more votes. i mean that for me said it all. and at the same time that this comes out, you have the republican congressman from tennessee suggesting we should have random drug testing of welfare recipients. there you have the exact opposite message coming out from a republican again, about how they view basically poor people. >> and unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss this, this piece of strate
of the defense of marriage act. a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joel walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinatine inine ining piec. hillary clinton has come forward in a very well-produced video. very well done. and i listened to it all today and it's well done. here's why question. how did it happen? we were talking, the producers and i, when is she going to do it, how is she going to do it? >> i knew the clint nts for a long time. i grew up in arkansas. over the last few years every chance i had when i was around people in leadership positions, i urged them to fully evolve and come out in support of marriage equali equality. that includes former secretary clinton sometime clint clinton. sometimes in the last ten days or so she reached out to do this video
that while republicans may grouse about d.o.m.a. and prop 8, the best thing that could happen if the supreme court strikes down both, he writes a supreme court decision imposing gay marriage nationwide will give republicans a useful scapegoat to impotently shake their fists at, they will say they wish they could continue their fight against gay marriage but the activists on the supreme court have made it impossible and gradually, everyone who cares about stopping gay marriage will grow old and die. >> i think he probably is right about that, good analysis. better for them if the issue is somehow taken off the table. the thing they most hate is when the supreme court preempts legislation at the state and federal level. i mean it's interesting a dynamic now, the issue is moving faster than anybody could have ever anticipated. and republicans in this case thought it was going to be a political advantage for them has quickly turned into a liability. the question of at what point a politician gets patted on the head for being courageous and at what time they deserve a little slap for being late t
clinton recently wanting the supreme court to overterm o dd doma and was that a cat take list for hillary clinton? >> i think we can probably guess pretty well that people's family influences were there on this issue. hillary clinton said it herself in the clip you played. and certainly president obama was moved as he said by his daughters and his wife. so i would imagine that the former president and chelsea had an influence on where the secretary ended up, as well. >> brian, last question. just you and me and a couple people watching. are there any more big named announcements in the works for you? >> well, we've seen seen a lot of really exciting developments on the issue of marriage. >> folks like -- >> you know, you never know who the next person will be. but i'm sure we'll be hearing from more people in the coming days and weeks. >> i tried. brian, thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> new york mayor michael bloomberg is proposing yet another health initiative. this one would require stores to keep tobacco products hidden in cabinets behind curtains, under the counter. this idea com
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)